Posted on 04/21/2015 10:46:54 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
The Supreme Court told the police Tuesday they may not turn routine traffic stops into drug searches using trained dogs.
The 6-3 decision ends the increasingly common practice whereby officers stop a car for a traffic violation and then call for a drug-sniffing dog to inspect the vehicle.
The justices, both liberal and conservative, agreed that it was an unconstitutional "search and seizure" to hold a motorist in such cases.
"Police may not prolong detention of a car and driver beyond the time reasonably required to address the traffic violation," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking for the court. [snip]
Ginsburg said police officers who stop a car for speeding or another traffic violation are justified in checking the motorist and his driver's license. But a traffic stop does not give officers the authority to conduct an "unrelated" investigation involving drugs, she said. [snip]
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia. Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined her opinion.[snip]
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy dissented. They said the stop itself was legal, and it was reasonable to hold the motorist because the officer suspected they may be carrying drugs.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
SCOTUS.
This is good news. Many of these dogs are extremely “well-trained” tools used by the cops to turn traffic stops in to drug busts.
Even "law and order" conservatives should respect the Bill of Rights.
They will ALL have dogs now.....................
Many of these dogs will "alert" when they know the handler wants them to alert - a well attributed phenomenon the USSC ignored the last time they dealt with the issue of police drug dogs.
Yes. That is exactly what I meant by “well-trained”.
Roberts, take the Constitution seriously? Sometimes.
I agree. I believe their was a case in AZ where the dog alerted and the cop put the driver thru a cavity search and turned up nothing.
and it was reasonable to hold the motorist because the officer suspected they may be carrying drugs.
It makes sense. I assumed what they were saying was that a cop can’t decide, simply because he has you, that you are going to be checked out by a dog. I’m confused.
I was stopped in Chicago last Thanksgiving eve at 11:30 pm on the last half hour of a drive from central KY. I had my metrosexual multipoo in the car and was surprising my wife who was with the grandkids. I was driving in a way that caused the cop to ask, “Why are you driving like a maniac.” I was also in my Scion FR-S.
Anyway, when they saw it was some 61 year old surprising his wife on thanksgiving and, truth be told, I wasn’t driving all that bad, they let me off with a warning - but not until the K-9 unit showed up to give me a good sniffing. He had been called before the cop even walked up to the car.
The only probable cause was the lateness of the hour, the driving and the car. That should not have been reasonable suspicion.
Holly Pardon. You will never believe the 100s of thousands that now go free. Conservatives knew all the time that it was a 4th amendment violation. Why can’t “law enforcement” follow the darn LAW!!?
No problem. They will just dawdle until the police dog and handler can get there.
Just so y’all know the local impact of Marijuana legalization:
The guy who sat across from me on the 6:00 A.M. train was going to work stoned out of his mind already.
True. Many more dogs will alert on command more often than they will alert on a sniff.
The guy who sat across from me on the 6:00 A.M. train was going to work stoned out of his mind already.
How do you know he didn't do that even before legalization?
Well, he wasn't driving.
My kids’ private school started using drug dogs last year. They practiced using them during the summer while my kids were in a theater camp. They alerted on my daughter’s bag and they emptied her bag. Without asking permission. She walked in and all of her stuff was out for all the kids to see. She was embarassed. I was pissed off. She keeps advil in her purse because she has focal dystonia and tendonitis.
This is absolutely true, and renders the entire argument moot.
These dogs merely give the cops an excuse to do whatever they want, which is trample our rights. Some of these dogs have a failure rate higher than 50% ! How is that even possible?
It is patently unconstitutional, and an example of the police state
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.